[OSM-talk] Mapping canals

>And what is the exact SI equivalent of 30mph? >I can give you an approximation: 48.28032km/h. >What happens though if everyone sticks in 48 instead.. close enough isn't >it? Nitpicking, but 48.28032 km/h *is* exact. Although in the usual SI unit, 30 mph would be 13.4112 m/s (exactly). Richard B

[OSM-talk] Mottram Bypass - proposed roads

> > 1) How does one tag something that is being considered seriously (such as > the Mottram Tintwistle bypass), but which may well never get built? I > think > I will just put the estimated build date given by the highways agency for > now. (I will also continue to use the tunnel trick to get it t

Re: [OSM-talk] highway=unsurfaced

FWIW I've now replaced several occurrences of highway=unsurfaced in the UK (thanks to Steve's very timely rendering), starting in areas I know personally (West Oxfordshire and Rutland), and not a single one would be described as a road in the UK. I added some several years ago. I've changed some

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

I am also surprised that we are going to the compulsory re-licensing when there are still (as far as I can tell without looking too closely) doubts over the compatibility of significant datasources with the new licence or contributor terms - From what I can tell from a few wiki pages, it is not cl

Re: [OSM-talk] Three-dimensional aerial imagery

I saw this news story about how three-dimensional aerial photos, viewed with special glasses, make it easier to pick out structures on the ground. I wonder if any such 3-d imagery is available today? It would seem to involve having two cameras a s

Re: [OSM-talk] Tracks and there place in society

Very basically this is all a problem becuase highway=track and highway=bridleway/byway/footway cannot both be tagged >together. They need to be understood and moved, or duplicated into 'routes' or another key to state access. Having >them together any longer will knock 10 years off my life,

Re: [OSM-talk] talk Digest, Vol 57, Issue 39

> StreetView data would be awesome to have, since it would massivly > increase the amount of information we could add. Footpaths, speedlimits, > number of lanes, etc etc, Theses are things you can't get from aerial > imagery. > But surely you can get this from, say, actually going there, like most

Re: [OSM-talk] Yahoo imagery, Hungary vs Croatia

> > Pecs ih Hungay is in high-res: > http://maps.yahoo.com/#mvt=s&lat=46.074824&lon=18.226571&zoom=17 > > > Kaposvar; > http://maps.yahoo.com/#mvt=s&lat=46.36273&lon=17.796989&zoom=15 > > I didn't all towns in Hungary but Pecs is a bit bigger that Osijek, > and Kaposvar is much smaller that Osijek

[OSM-talk] Highways tagging vs Polygon

Am I missing something, or can we not just assume that e.g. each highway=residential has a speed limit consistent with urban areas in that country - unless explicitly tagged otherwise e.g. in the UK, highway=residential would be 30mph (48.28032km/h), unless tagged as something else. each highw

Re: [OSM-talk] RR8 - Possible International Vandal

>I'll go over what the mapper did in Ireland, which to me is the >clearest case of (at least) reckless incompetence (an ill that can be >cured through communication, but only with two-way communication): > >* All motorway under construction marked complete. Including adding >amateurish (wrong way,

Re: [OSM-talk] OpenStreetView

> > [still not enough :)] > > For moderating: right now I moderated several photos until I cam onto a > visible license plate. This I masked and added the tag licenceplate, > left the masking area, clicked "mark as safe" and "save" - and then an > error showed up: > | There was an error saving your

Re: [OSM-talk] SteveC should decide

>> oneway=no is useful for highway types which would usually imply >> oneway=yes: >> highway=motorway, highway=motorway_link and junction=roundabout. The >> southern A601(M), that bonkers sliproad on the M50, and (depending on >> interpretation) the Swindon Magic Roundabout are UK examples of each

Re: [OSM-talk] Google has dual carriage way where it'snot

>> > Then you are proposing > > highway=planned > planned=* (highway class) > > Is that correct? Sounds OK to me. > I'd use highway=proposed instead. Already has renderer support on the Mapnik layer There are approximately 7 times more highway=proposed than highway=planned in the database so fa

Re: [OSM-talk] Instead of voting

> 2) Use existing keys if you can. When you use a key, check to see if > there's an existing value that matches what you are mapping. To go > looking, put your key into the following URL where it says "shop": > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shop > > 3) Use existing tags if you can. When

Re: [OSM-talk] RR8 - Possible International Vandal (assistance required in various countries)

> > Just a further heads up that this user appears to have posted to SABRE > asking for a way to edit OSM privately. Any suggestions I should pass on > to him? It should keep him from vandalising live data if it was possible. > Just a bit of a heads up really. I've just spotted some random changin

Re: [OSM-talk] Garmin eTrex Vista Hcx

> > Shalabh schrieb: >> Would just like to figure out if any of you have had the same issue with >> this model or any other Garmin GPS. > > I have a similar Issue with the Garmin Vista HCx. Occasionally I > observe, that the GPS position is way off the known road/path I am on. > The satellite accur

Re: [OSM-talk] What Streets are in what Places

> > The problem with admin boundaries, here in the Uk anyway is that they > have very little to do with the towns or places they actually are > around. > > Admin_level tends to suggest a simple hierarchy that does not exists. > and tends from what I've seen here to be related to govenment admin > s

Re: [OSM-talk] positioning of barrier = stile

> My query relates to where a footway joins a road and there is a stile. > > say a- b is footway , and c - d is road > > Should the stile be placed at "b" > c > | > | > a--b > | > | > d > > or should I put in a node "e" and tag that w

Re: [OSM-talk] Mapping everything as areas

>> Using areas seems like a lot of work for no benefit if you just need a >> simple 2 lane road that has no foot paths or other interesting >> features. > > Are you saying that you wouldn't find mapping areas satisfying? If so, > that's fine - you don't have to. > > But for people who want to do it

Re: [OSM-talk] talk Digest, Vol 64, Issue 20

> 2) There is a divided road that has been sketched out roughly, simply > to indicate the division. (Very common, I think) Converting this to a > simple divided=* tag doesn't lose information, and better indicates > the actual level of information stored. > Here's one that looks like 2): > http://

Re: [OSM-talk] Divided roads proposal

> 3) Extra precision requires more time, which we don't necessarily have. > Let's say that we agree that all divided roads "should" be mapped as two > ways. Let's also say it takes on average 1 minute to trace out a single > way. > There's a volunteer with 60 divided roads to map in front of him,

Re: [OSM-talk] Divided roads proposal

>>But to be completely honest, mapping out dual carriageways is really not >>*that* time consuming. In JOSM you could just copy the way you have drawn >>and drag the copied way a few metres to the side and reverse the >>direction. > >If that's the case, it sort of shoots down the "dual carriageway

Re: [OSM-talk] Divided roads proposal

> Maybe we should be mapping slipways, hopefully there's a better approach > than marking them all as fully fledged roads though. > Sliproads are tagged as highway=xyz_link e.g. a sliproad to a motorway would be highway=motorway_link sliproad to a trunk road would be highway=trunk_link etc. See

Re: [OSM-talk] ClosedCycleMap (was: Re: Cross-renderer tag support, now with OSMdoc!)

> I think it's important here to separate technically rational arguments > like > "one update per week is enough" from emotional/social/visceral factors > like > "omg, I made a change and it's already in the map!" That instant feedback > has been a huge factor in Wikipedia's success. If the origi

Re: [OSM-talk] TAG-Suggestion: highway:trailer_shipment (Carsten Moeller)

> A highway=steps would imply you can use your car here. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Image:Steps.jpg You wouldn't *seriously* consider driving up or down a flight of steps...surely?? > If I understood the intention correctly then highway is something you can > drive on. No. The hig

Re: [OSM-talk] path or byway ?

> > Message: 9 > Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 18:54:51 -0500 > From: Alex Mauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] path or byway ? > To: talk@openstreetmap.org > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Pieren wrote: >> Dear talk, >> >>

Re: [OSM-talk] graveyards not rendering correctly

> > I mapped some time ago a small grave yard ( > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=35.49298&lon=23.9686&zoom=17&layers=0B00FTF), > however it appears as though neither Mapnik nor [EMAIL PROTECTED] are > rendering this > area. > renders on both [EMAIL PROTECTED] and mapnik. With as well it re

[OSM-talk] Motorways and Motorway_link

> > (Trim the crap and return to sanity ;) ) > The definition in the UK would mean that motorway and motorway_link ARE > always > one way and anything that needed to be two way would not be flagged as > 'motorway' but no doubt parallels in other countries are not quite so > clear cut? > Perhaps t

Re: [OSM-talk] Motorways and Motorway_link

> I stand corrected on the two direction sections BUT the examples you give > ARE > motorway_links rather than motorway. Most of the links like this that I > frequent have now been divided with a barrier. And a word of warning the > 'Maximum speed' for a single carriageway road in the UK is 60 MPH

[OSM-talk] Metric / imperial bridge heights

> Mappers should be mapping what it is they find. If I find an 11'3" >> clearance bridge with a 20mph limit beneath it then that is what I >> want to map. > > Nobody is suggesting you shouldn't do that. I'll certainly express the > view that when I drive under that bridge, my km/h speedometer and l

Re: [OSM-talk] Directional tagging

> >>> b) 2+1 ways as we call them in Sweden, they are normal ways but have a >>> small fence in the middle and 2 lanes on one side and 1 lane on the >>> other side. They look like this: >>> http://www.vv.se/filer/V?gprojekt/3-Falt.jpg >> >> I would say that these should be done the same way as moto

[OSM-talk] OSM Inspector

> Message: 4 > Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 10:49:05 + > From: Steve Chilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Where have all the contributors gone? > To: "Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, osm > > Message-ID: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset

[OSM-talk] Map Features

> Since at least a few are using smoothness, I don't see any problem to put > it > on map features, and let people who want, use it. Are you *seriously* suggesting that we put every tag used by "at least a few" on the main map features page? According to Tagwatch - there are over 4300 keys in u

[OSM-talk] Deleted nodes on the A3

>> > >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.0413&lon=-0.9116&zoom=14&layers=B000FTF >> > [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.5/way/28755575 >> > [2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.5/way/28755575/history >> >> Looking at at least one of the nodes shown in the history way >> http://www.opens

[OSM-talk] Maritme borders

> In Europe a number of maritime borders have been tagged recently as > national > borders, with boundary=administrative and admin_level=2. > > Exactly what is tagged varies: > North of Norway: A part of the exclusive economic zone > Finland: 24 mile contiguous zone > South of Sweden: Looks like a

[OSM-talk] Deleting way from a relation

> I am unable to remove way http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/4596756 > > from the relation http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/21359 > > I am thus also unable to delete way 4596756 which is overlapping > another way also beeing part of the relation. > > I am using JOSM and get en er

Re: [OSM-talk] Can not remove a way from a relation

>>> nodes. Using the script I found that the relation (21359) contains a >>> reference to way 8135282, which was deleted on January 5th >>> (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/8135282/history). I tried to >>> remove the way from the relation, but get the same error while >>> uploading. >>> >>